Author
Topic: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?
(Read 53532 times)

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #168 on:** November 15, 2017, 02:53:19 PM »

Quote from: PSUinNC on November 15, 2017, 02:12:45 PM

Weren't we discussing just a few pages ago that Penn St needs to stop scheduling Pitt for this exact reason? Pitt was actually playing Top 25 football when the series was announced, and PSU had to deal with the pending sanctions. So, PSU shouldn't be penalized either then right? PSU lost two gut wrenchers, on the road, against Top 20 teams. Would you put TCU ahead of PSU?

I disagree with badge on this. I've seen the same thing happen to my team. Ohio State played a horrible Washington team in 2007 but when that was scheduled, Washington was good.

For me, I don't care if your opponents are "helmets" or not and I don't care how good they were last year or five years ago. I believe that every schedule should be assessed based on how good the teams on it are THIS year. I think this idea that we should give Bama, Michigan, TCU, Wisconsin, and PSU "bonus points" because they probably thought that FSU, Florida, Arkansas, BYU, and Pitt would be better is ludicrous. I've said it before and I still believe that this isn't 3rd grade T-ball and we shouldn't grade based on effort.
Next year the Buckeyes' OOC consists of Oregon State, atTCU, and Tulane. When we scheduled Oregon State they were pretty good but that shouldn't matter. If Oregon State, TCU, and Tulane all suck next year then the Buckeyes should take a hit for that.

That said, I obviously think that PSU should be "penalized" for Pitt sucking but it isn't anything against PSU it is simply that I think every team should be assessed based on the actual strength of their schedule not based on what it looked like on paper.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #169 on:** November 15, 2017, 03:46:31 PM »

Quote from: PSUinNC on November 15, 2017, 02:12:45 PM

Weren't we discussing just a few pages ago that Penn St needs to stop scheduling Pitt for this exact reason? Pitt was actually playing Top 25 football when the series was announced, and PSU had to deal with the pending sanctions. So, PSU shouldn't be penalized either then right? PSU lost two gut wrenchers, on the road, against Top 20 teams. Would you put TCU ahead of PSU?

Correct.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #170 on:** November 15, 2017, 04:00:53 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on November 15, 2017, 02:53:19 PM

I disagree with badge on this. I've seen the same thing happen to my team. Ohio State played a horrible Washington team in 2007 but when that was scheduled, Washington was good.

??

I don't disagree at all. I'm looking at it this year with BYU. BYU was winning 10 games per season when the series was announced. It happened to UW way back too, with North Carolina and Arizona. They both sucked by the time the games rolled around. WVU not as bad, but not like they were.

I'd love to see series with the best teams. It's not gonna happen because UW is very good, but it's not a helmet.

ELA · « **Reply #171 on:** November 15, 2017, 04:06:45 PM »

I don't think teams should be criticized for bad scheduling when the opponents aren't as good as they were when they are signed. But I don't think your CFP resume should be based on intentions. No, Wisconsin didn't know BYU was going to suck when they scheduled it, so I'm not going to criticize their OOC schedule, or TCU for scheduling Arkansas. But I'm going to evalute Wisconsin and TCU's resumes based on the teams they played, not the teams they thought they were playing.

I'm not giving Alabama much credit for beating Florida State either.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #172 on:** November 15, 2017, 04:22:48 PM »

Agree 100 percent.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #173 on:** November 15, 2017, 04:33:36 PM »

I think that is an important distinction. I'm not criticizing Wisconsin. I understand that BYU was a good team when scheduled so I'm not saying "Wisconsin schedules creampuffs". They didn't intend to schedule a creampuff. When Wisconsin scheduled BYU they thought they were getting a quality OOC opponent.

Similarly, when Michigan and Alabama scheduled Florida and Florida State they thought they were scheduling CFP contenders.

That said, I am in agreement with ELA that those teams' schedules should be evaluated based on what actually happened not the intentions of their AD's.

TresselownsUM · « **Reply #174 on:** November 15, 2017, 04:38:01 PM »

That's exactly the tier of P5 opponents that are going to be willing to schedule TCU for home-and-home series.

Ohio State has a home and home with TCU starting next year, maybe some ADs need to just try harder.

utee94 · « **Reply #175 on:** November 15, 2017, 04:44:42 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on November 15, 2017, 01:29:17 PM

I disagree. TCU's OOC opponents were:
FCS Jackson State
4-6 Arkansas
6-4 (in the AAC) SMU
They made their bed. When you schedule that OOC you just have to accept the fact that you aren't going to get the BOTD against a team with the same record.

medina, you're the one that criticized the scheduling itself, not the current quality of the team.

I agree that current quality should be used to measure current season's standings.

But your statement above appears to be criticizing the nature of the scheduling. I don't fault TCU for scheduling Arkansas and a couple of scrubs any more than I fault Ohio State afor scheduling OU and a couple of scrubs. This year's on-field results should be all that matters when comparing the two teams and, when you take the entire OOC plus in-conference schedule to date, I believe TCU's and tOSU's results to be quite similar.

utee94 · « **Reply #176 on:** November 15, 2017, 04:51:11 PM »

Quote from: TresselownsUM on November 15, 2017, 04:38:01 PM

That's exactly the tier of P5 opponents that are going to be willing to schedule TCU for home-and-home series.

Ohio State has a home and home with TCU starting next year, maybe some ADs need to just try harder.

That's cool, TCU is clearly trying to get marquee helmets on the schedule by agreeing to the series, and they've clearly not had a lot of takers since their typical OOC teams have been Arkansas/Minnesota/Virginia level opponents.

It's a pretty well known and understood occurrence that many helmets don't want to risk playing good but non-helmet teams like TCU, or Wisconsin. tOSU is obviously willing to do it which is good, and Texas has recently played Ole Miss, UCLA, BYU, Cal-Berkeley, and Maryland, so Texas has shown some willingness to do it as well. (Just not against Wisconsin

). But for the most part, helmets aren't going around granting a lot of home-and-home series to non-helmet P5 teams.

Brutus Buckeye · « **Reply #177 on:** November 15, 2017, 04:58:34 PM »

OSU will be in the same boat as Wisconsin in 2019, when Cincinnati is their "big" non-Conference game.

ELA · « **Reply #178 on:** November 15, 2017, 05:01:42 PM »

Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on November 15, 2017, 04:58:34 PM

OSU will be in the same boat as Wisconsin in 2019, when Cincinnati is their "big" non-Conference game.

Eh, you never know. You could go schedule Florida, and still have Cincinnati wind up as your marquee game.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #179 on:** November 15, 2017, 05:12:38 PM »

Quote from: utee94 on November 15, 2017, 04:51:11 PM

That's cool, TCU is clearly trying to get marquee helmets on the schedule by agreeing to the series, and they've clearly not had a lot of takers since their typical OOC teams have been Arkansas/Minnesota/Virginia level opponents.

It's a pretty well known and understood occurrence that many helmets don't want to risk playing good but non-helmet teams like TCU, or Wisconsin. tOSU is obviously willing to do it which is good, and Texas has recently played Ole Miss, UCLA, BYU, Cal-Berkeley, and Maryland, so Texas has shown some willingness to do it as well. (Just not against Wisconsin ). But for the most part, helmets aren't going around granting a lot of home-and-home series to non-helmet P5 teams.

Playing TCU is good for Texas recruiting. "Giving" them a return game I good business on OSU's part.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #180 on:** November 15, 2017, 05:34:42 PM »

Quote from: utee94 on November 15, 2017, 04:44:42 PM

medina, you're the one that criticized the scheduling itself, not the current quality of the team.

I agree that current quality should be used to measure current season's standings.

But your statement above appears to be criticizing the nature of the scheduling. I don't fault TCU for scheduling Arkansas and a couple of scrubs any more than I fault Ohio State afor scheduling OU and a couple of scrubs. This year's on-field results should be all that matters when comparing the two teams and, when you take the entire OOC plus in-conference schedule to date, I believe TCU's and tOSU's results to be quite similar.

That is a fair point. I shouldn't criticize TCU as harshly as I did because Arkansas was intended to be a good OOC game.
I do think, however, that just generically OU and two scrubs is going to be a tougher slate most years than Arkansas and two scrubs.
Regardless of whether or not they deserve to be criticized for it, TCU ended up with a weak OOC schedule this year.

MrNubbz · « **Reply #181 on:** November 15, 2017, 05:36:59 PM »

Quote from: Temp430 on November 15, 2017, 09:31:48 AM

Having been blown out twice I think it's fair to say Ohio State is not going to the playoffs no matter what happens over the next few weeks. Wisconsin is it for the Big Ten if they win out. If Wisconsin does not win out I think the Big Ten gets shut out this year.

Sorta of agree but clemson losing to Cuse is worse than losing to Iowa.Of course Dabo would have to lay another egg

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?

medinabuckeye1

Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?

847badgerfan

Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?

847badgerfan

Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?

ELA

Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?

847badgerfan

Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?

medinabuckeye1

Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?

TresselownsUM

Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?

utee94

Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?

utee94

Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?

Brutus Buckeye

Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?

ELA

Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?

847badgerfan

Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?

medinabuckeye1

Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?

MrNubbz

Re: Playoffs! Did someone say Playoffs?